Saturday, June 26, 2010

Why I am not a feminist

From Abortion Gang:
You can’t call yourself a feminist and deny women the right to make their own healthcare decisions. If you are anti-choice, you simply can NOT be a feminist.

Yeah, if you're a feminist, it is obligatory to support a woman's right to have her unborn child killed at her discretion. If you believe in the equal rights of ALL human beings, then you cannot be a feminist. You must believe that women's rights are above everyone else's rights.

Poverty rates are much higher for women than they are for men, which requires feminists to fight for the rights of ALL Americans, not just those in the top tax bracket.

If you believe in personal responsibility, and that poverty is mostly caused by people's own dumb choices, then you can't be a feminist-- because then you couldn't feel entitled to taxpayer money.

Ayn Rand had an interesting saying. She said if you want to fight poverty, don't be poor. In other words, make the decisions that lead you to not needing to depend on other people.

But that's just crazy talk in the feminist world. Sleep around, divorce, kill your unborn children, just do whatever you darn well feel like without any consideration of how it affects others or your future economic situation. Whine like a baby that it's unfair that you have to assume the consequences of your own choices. Smoking, drinking, drugging, living in debt, that's your prerogative as a woman and NOBODY should ever question the choices that led to your economic situation. That would be "judgemental". Judgementalism is ALWAYS wrong, even if it points to FACTS that would actually help you out of your situation.


A commitment to healthcare for all, better school systems, better childcare, marriage equality, AND reproductive justice, among many other issues, are critical to being able to call yourself a feminist.

In other words, you have to be a liberal.

Why people on the right insist on calling themselves feminists, I don't know.

Let them have their "feminist" label. Then marginalize them. So few people meet all the qualifications that if we all gang up on feminists, they'll never have their way. We're so afraid of being labelled "anti-women"-- as if a minority of women can define what's "pro-women" for the rest of us.

Feminism is an ideology. It's not the truth. Labelling people "misogynistic" is a rhetorical tactic; it's not a description of reality. The sooner we unmask feminism for what it is, without fear of reproach, the sooner we can stop the insanity and really help women. And men, too.

The other thing we should do is stop every feminist who tries to use "faux feminists" to make them seem like they're more numerous than they are. You know what I'm talking about-- those women who start off their statements by saying "I'm not a feminist but...". If they're saying "I'm not a feminist", it's probably because they dissent from feminist orthodoxy in some major way, even if they express support for abortion, or pay equity, or universal daycare or whatever.

Orthodoxy is a necessary part of feminism. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. It's a closed club, and anyone who dissents is out of the club.

Comments (16)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
"It's supposed to shut people up. As if being a "hater" invalidates everything you just said."

Just like sneering at the opinions of others and calling them "irrelevant" is supposed to shut them up.

Shoe on the other foot.
Reply
2 replies · active 760 weeks ago
I call your remarks irrelevant because they are only opinions, not actual comments on reality.

When you decide to make comments on reality, then you will no longer be irrelevant. Because you are trying to address the common reality that we share.

But expect to be challenged. You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts. When you put forward a statement as a fact, and you are challenged, and then you say it's "just an opinion" don't come saying that you're trying to be shut up. If anything, I want nothing more than for you to justify your statements. You're not being shut up, you shut up yourself. You simply do not want to back up anything you say. Don't want to back up anything you say? In the real world, that makes you irrelevant. It suggests that there is a lack of substance to what you say.
Reply
I do NOT share your reality.

Show me where I've put forward one of my own opinions as a fact.

I do not need to "justify" my opinions. My opiniions are what I think, and they work for me. They don't work for you? Not my problem.
Reply
She said if you want to fight poverty, don't be poor. In other words, make the decisions that lead you to not needing to depend on other people.

Says the woman who stays at home with her children and thus is utterly dependent on whoever is paying for that. Anyway, statistics do not bear you out on the assertion that poverty is primarily caused by poor choices (unless you count such stupid choices as "choosing to be born in a slum" etc.). And, quite frankly, to suggest otherwise means deliberately ignoring reality.

And I'm sick and tired about hearing right wingers complain about 'tax-payer money' going to something they don't like. If they don't like it, they can always pretend that THEIR money goes to the military, something even the most rabid deficit-hawk seems to be only too happy to waste money on. There is certainly enough tax-payer money being dumped there to cover all their complaints and grievances, tenfold. Meanwhile MY money will pay for useful stuff like healthcare, infrastructure, schools, a security net for the poor etc.
Reply
"Anyway, statistics do not bear you out on the assertion that poverty is primarily caused by poor choices "

What causes poverty for women?

In the main: single motherhood. Caused by premarital sex. And divorces. Two-thirds of which are initiated by women.

Other causes of poverty: not finishing high school. Drug use. Lack of work ethic.

These are all personal choices.

"Says the woman who stays at home with her children and thus is utterly dependent on whoever is paying for that."

And I'm not poor. I chose the correct husband.

"And I'm sick and tired about hearing right wingers complain about 'tax-payer money' going to something they don't like."

Because right-wingers believe that the state should not be a wealth-redestribution program for people who make dumb choices.

"If they don't like it, they can always pretend that THEIR money goes to the military, something even the most rabid deficit-hawk seems to be only too happy to waste money on. "

We don't "pretend". It does go there. Not enough of it, as far as I'm concerned.

"There is certainly enough tax-payer money being dumped there to cover all their complaints and grievances, "

See, the problem is: the military/self-defense is a function of government. Wealth redestribution should not be. When governments get in the business of wealth redistribution, the people demand "bread and circuses" as in the days of the Roman Empire. Society becomes parasitical, expecting others to bail them out when they can do it themselves, but feel so entitled to other people's money, they don't want to.

"Meanwhile MY money will pay for useful stuff like healthcare, infrastructure, schools, a security net for the poor etc. "

I'm for infrastructure. And schools. And some money for healthcare. And some money for a welfare program for people who are TRULY stuck, like the handicapped or someone who has really rotten luck. By that, I mean the people who stay on welfare for less than two years while they retrain. Not people who stay stuck on welfare year after year after year.

But too many count on Employment Insurance (as it's called in this country) as income YEAR after YEAR. Too many people expect their industry to be bailed out when it's failing or inefficient. Too many public workers want raise increases when the government is in a bind (and there is too much government).

Big government is inefficient. It intrudes on people's lives. It makes people parasitical. It discourages self-reliance. It bribes voters with tax-paid projects. I could go on.
Reply
You don't work, but those of us who do, know that EI is funded by the workers and their employers. People that collect have paid into this fund. Like QPP and CPP.
Reply
1 reply · active 759 weeks ago
know that EI is funded by the workers and their employers.

Hemm

People who use EI year after year do not pay their share. They get FAR more out of it than they put into it. So people who use it the way it was INTENDED-- as a TEMPORARY means of income in between jobs-- get way more out of it than they put into it.

Seasonal workers who live off of EI are essentially being parasites. They're living off a government cheque that they did not pay for. This is not about seasonal workers having one or two bad years and they need the spare cash. This is about government money being siphoned off to fund an economically unrproductive way of life to buy votes.

EI is essentially a tax. I know it's not called a tax, but that's what it is. The money that goes into EI goes into the government general revenue-- that's the account that gathers all the tax money (in theory, because of course this is all a question of accounting on paper). In other words, the money from EI is not distinguishable from any other tax money. As a result, EI is used by the government to pay for other government expenses. Paul Martin paid down the deficit using EI. EI has a 50 billion + surplus. It's not a worker-funded program. It's another means for the government to suck money out of workers so that it doesn't have to cut spending or raise taxes.

As for Canadian pensions, although all workers pay into it, it's something of a scheme, because workers pay for the pensions of people who are already retired.
Reply
Re poverty: These are all personal choices.
I have to admit I was struggling with how to explain to you how wrong that is, so I thank you for providing me with the perfect example:
And I'm not poor. I chose the correct husband.
How very stupid of the women living in the Soweto not to choose the correct, i.e. wealthy, husband.

Not enough of it, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know about Canada's military spending. Currently the US Navy's battle fleet is larger than the next 13 largest navies combined - and of those 13, 11 belong to allies. You're concerned about taxpayer's money being wasted, slash military funding. But as I already said, if your taxes will take the military spending off my back, then mine will gladly pay for all the stuff you don't like. Thus, no one's taxes are wasted and everyone is happy.

Wealth redestribution should not be.
I disagree. Since the free market only ever redistributes wealth from bottom to top, I say one of the most important responsibilities of a government is to counteract that trend.
I think many right-wingers do not understand that without all the wealth-redistribution-related stuff the government does they themselves would be only one pink slip away from becoming the very people they now verbally shit on.
Small government is good for rich people and corporations. That, by the way, is nothing new. Small government, supplier side politics has been tried before. And I for one do not want to go back to the good old days of working 15 hours a day in a mine together with my hypothetical two sons, in virtual indentured servitude, to afford a 20m² room for a family of 7, while Mr. Krupp builds himself a huge, beautiful villa overlooking the Ruhr on the back of my work.

Right-wingers always treat these government programs as something outrageous. They are not. They are insurances, pure and simple. Just like you going to some private insurer and buying car insurance from him (or rather, in this case, health and/or unemployment insurance).
The only difference between the government providing health insurance, social security, etc. and a private insurer providing the very same services is that the way the government does it, everyone can afford it, not just well-off people like you and me. I fail to see the evil in that.
Reply
3 replies · active 759 weeks ago
How very stupid of the women living in the Soweto not to choose the correct, i.e. wealthy, husband.

I'm not talking about Soweto. Circumstances do have some influence on one's destiny.

But in Canada, MOST people are poor due to dumb choices.

Among the dumb choices many women make are poor partners.

You can't always predict that Mr. Nice Guy isn't going to bail out on you and leave you high and dry. But you can predict that Mr. Rebel Without a Clue is going to ditch you at the first sign of adversity, i.e. children. And he won't marry you.

If you marry Mr. Nice Guy, you strongly enhance your chances of living a non-poor lifestyle. Actually, marriage is one of the best predictors of economic stability. Social scientists know this. My husband works in the civil service. He was a meeting one day that touched upon poverty, and his superiors joked that maybe the government should get into the match-making business. People who live alone are far more likely to be poor than people who live together.

A woman who wants to decrease her chances of being poor should look to date men with a strong family and work ethic and who have some kind of training. Too many women start dating in their teens and have no clue about this. They sleep around without realizing the effects their sexual behaviour can have on their future prosperity.

You're concerned about taxpayer's money being wasted, slash military funding

Canada overcommits itself to all kinds of missions, including peacekeeping, which is a fine task. Helping to build peace-- or at least try to KEEP the peace is a reasonable function of government.

Canadian governments have woefully underfunded Canada's military while expecting it to do all kinds of tasks. We went into the war in Afghanistan with 40-year-old Sea King helicopters for crying out loud.

But as I already said, if your taxes will take the military spending off my back, then mine will gladly pay for all the stuff you don't like.

Populism is an important part of democracy. So I have no objection to people telling the government they want to cut military spending. But as it is a matter of votes. I suspect that large numbers of Canadians would want their military adequately funded. They don't want to send their troops to dangerous areas in leaky old boats.
Reply
Since the free market only ever redistributes wealth from bottom to top,

Wealth should not be redistributed on a mass scale. Because massive wealth redistribution creates parasites and stifles economic development which inevitably leads to contraction and decline. The free market doesn't redistribute wealth in the sense of handing out cheques to people who are starving on the street. What the free market does is allow people who are wealthy to risk their wealth in starting up companies and projects that give people jobs that allow them to live. The economic spinoffs in turn help other people to live.

Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to poor people. In the age of feudalism, if your crops failed, you and your family starved and died of diseases. In this day and age, because of the advances made possible by capitalism, you don't have to worry about the next meal. Unless you're on drugs and living on the street.

Look at any place that has ever had mass wealth redistribution, and all you have is mass repression and economy misery. Sure, everyone is equal. Equally poor and miserable.

In countries where the economic system is based on the free market, sure, there are inequalities in terms of wealth, but inequality of wealth does not amount to widescale poverty. I might be living on $40 000 a year and living very well in my bachelor pad. Most poverty in our society is due to people's dumb choices. To be poor in this society-- by that, I mean lack the necessities of life-- you really have to work at it. Or otherwise, be really unlucky. Most people are not unlucky for their whole lives. Most people have a spate of bad luck-- a lay off, a work injury, an involuntary divorce, a medical crisis-- and they manage to recover. People who are chronically poor persistently do dumb and irresponsible things. They do drugs. They sleep around, and parent children they cannot afford. They fail to obtain the necessary training for a decent job. They lack any sense of work ethic. They spend themselves into bankruptcy.

These are things that are WHOLLY preventable. Don't do drugs. Don't sleep around. In fact, if you're not married and don't have the money, don't have sex at all. Get an education. Don't spend more than you have. Show up for work.

It's all so very easy. But people feel entitled to break the rules of reality. If you avoid making those dumb choices, AND get a job, you will not be poor. Lots of people do it.

I think many right-wingers do not understand that without all the wealth-redistribution-related stuff the government does they themselves would be only one pink slip away from becoming the very people they now verbally *** on.

I am not against a hand UP. I am against a HAND OUT. As the old saying goes. Bad luck happens. But doing drugs, spending yourself into bankruptcy, getting pregnant out of wedlock, and dropping out of school is NOT bad luck. If you have savings, if you do not spend more than you have, if you have skills, if you are willing to do whatever it takes to support you and your family, you're probably in good shape.

Small government, supplier side politics has been tried before.

When? Under Reagan? Biggest government spender in history. Racked up the debt. Increased taxes. Lots of good rhetoric. Did not follow through with actions. Even so, the eighties saw some of the biggest economic growth ever.

They are insurances, pure and simple.

I like insurance. Living 40 weeks a year on EI is not "insurance". Living years on end on welfare is not "insurance". Money spent on countless agencies is not "insurance".

The only difference between the government providing health insurance, social security, etc. and a private insurer providing the very same services is that the way the government does it, everyone can afford it, not just well-off people like you and me. I fail to see the evil in that.

And because the government does it, it is far more inefficient. It ends up wasting a lot of money. Just as an example: drugs prices rise exponentially the more they are government-funded. Why wouldn't they? People treat tax money as a great big piggy bank. Shrink the demand, lower the amount people are willing to pay, and companies must insure as many people as possible. Or go out of business. They have an interest in making their product affordable to the average person. But many people don't WANT insurance because they're too dumb to buy it. Again, a lack of personal responsibility.
Reply
A woman who wants to decrease her chances of being poor should look to date men with a strong family and work ethic and who have some kind of training. (pars pro toto for the whole argument you put forward in your answer)
The availability of "men with a strong family and work ethic" and especially "some kind of training" is a function of your social background, as I tried to illustrate with my example. Together with all the other factors influencing your wealth. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Soweto or Canada, that is a fact. The only difference is by degrees.
There is no denying that some of the 'decisions' you mentioned seem 'stupid' to us. The problem is that poor people are not free to choose. Making the 'right' choice is, even if possible in some cases, infinitely more difficult for them than it is for us.
It's all so very easy.
You know what else is easy? Dumping on people who have no lobby and cannot defend themselves. To say that people are poor mainly because of their 'dumb' choices is an insult to poor people - something that I notice is very much en vogue amongst conservatives.

Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to poor people. [...] In this day and age, because of the advances made possible by capitalism, you don't have to worry about the next meal. Unless you're on drugs and living on the street.
Or if you happen to not have a job, wingnuts succeeded in eliminating welfare programs and you thus can't buy food. You seem to have missed the part where buying stuff requires money.

I'm not against capitalism, I'm just against a completely free market, because it doesn't work (and has been proven not to) and it aggravates social inequality with a vengeance. The Bush years in America saw a run on free-market capitalist policies. Do have a look at the statistics on who benefited and who was hurt by those policies, OK? A sufficiently deregulated free-market economy distributes wealth from bottom to top, on a huge scale. Again I would also draw your attention to the time in history you mistook for Reagan:

When? Under Reagan? Biggest government spender in history. Racked up the debt. Increased taxes. [...] Even so, the eighties saw some of the biggest economic growth ever.
And yet, somehow, conservatives still think that increasing taxes and government spending is bad for the economy. But you're right, compared to today's conservatives, Reagan was a left-wing radical.
And no, I wasn't talking about Reagon (obviously, if you read what I wrote after that).

Living 40 weeks a year on EI is not "insurance". Living years on end on welfare is not "insurance".
Do explain.
You pay the government money while you work and it insures you against loss of income. That's insurance. Same thing a private ensurer would do, only - as I've stated - when the government does it it's affordable. And to preempt your next complaint: I'm paying 54€ a year on my comprehensive, but am insured for up to 10 million. So if I cause sufficient damage tomorrow, then the insurer will pay me ~200000 times what I paid in - all out of the pockets of it's other clients.

And because the government does it, it is far more inefficient. It ends up wasting a lot of money.
Yeah, right. As can be seen from the hugely expensive American private health-care system compared to it's much cheaper, more efficient public counterparts.
Shrink the demand,
Of course, let's simply shrink the demand for health-care: Make people not be ill and the private system will be cheap. Why didn't we do that long ago? Must be the same kind of dumb choice poor people make all the time.

I think the modern conservative agenda stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a government is supposed to do. It's main job is to create a stable society, within the boundaries of personal freedom we defined in our constitutions. Free market logic simply does not apply to many of it's tasks. Thus, when you do apply free market logic to everything the government does, the results are - basically what we saw happening just now.
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/giving-new...
Reply
Out of curiousity, if Mr. BBW, were to run off or fall of the planet, do you have the means to support 3 children? You haven't worked in who knows how many years, and if you are a professional, a lot of employers want people who have kept current with their profession. Just asking...
Reply
3 replies · active 758 weeks ago
Hemmingford

If Mr. BBW ran off, he would have to pay child support. And probably a nice alimony payment. On top of whatever I get from the divorce. Marriage protects women from that kind of thing.

Otherwise HE could get custody of the children.

If he dropped dead, I have his generous insurance policy (probably could live nicely with 3 kids for about 5 years) and I believe I also get survivor benefits.

I also live in Ottawa. Although I'm not a professional, you can make a nice living here without a professional background. Maybe I wouldn't live in the lap of luxury, but enough to feed me and three children.

I saw other moms do it in my other neighbourhood. They weren't exactly starving. People aren't as poor as they make themselves out to be. If you have three meals a day,clothes on your back and a roof over your head, you're not that poor.
Reply
"If Mr. BBW ran off, he would have to pay child support. And probably a nice alimony payment. On top of whatever I get from the divorce. Marriage protects women from that kind of thing."

You just might wanna rethink your certitude on that. I know quite a few women whose partners left them stranded with kids and no way to pay the bills while they ran off with their girlfriends or boyfriends and took their bank accounts with them. "Have to" sounds good on paper, but it doesn't stack up worth beans to a stubborn, "Ain't gonna." Marriage protects nothing.
Reply
Were these women legally married?

Were these women up to their eyeballs in consumer debt?

If you have a joint bank account, you don't get to run off with it.

The problem with anecdotes is that you don't get at all the facts.
Reply
People scream out words with no understanding of their meaning or implication. It's just a way to monopolize the discussion. Call a pro-lifer a racist and watch how people react. Never mind that there are people of all kinds in the pro-life movement. It's easier to brand someone a monster than it is to argue intelligently.
Feminism is like communism- a failed system from the word go. How many of these "feminists" would go to Iran or North Korea where women truly need help?
The countries that truly need to slash military funding are countries like China, its vassal state, North Korea, and Russia which have extreme poverty and little or no human rights. Lyndon Baines Johnson put entire swaths of the American population on welfare and they are still on it. We've put our aboriginal people in ghettos called reserves. They'll never leave them. It's too comfortable a life. In short, government funding of social programs is a poor investment.
Reply

Comments by